@jj-adams saidHere's a simple rule: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do something, it cannot do that something. That is, unless the something is within the intended scope of an enumerated power.
I did.
It does NOT say any of the crimes must have been committed while in office.
There's a reason why in the 236 years since the Constitution was written, ir was never attempted to impeach a President for conduct prior to his becoming President.
You're welcome to do your own research into what the Framers meant by the term "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
@no1marauder saidHow about impeaching someone AFTER he's no longer president, like the Democrats did to Trump?
Here's a simple rule: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do something, it cannot do that something. That is, unless the something is within the intended scope of an enumerated power.
There's a reason why in the 236 years since the Constitution was written, ir was never attempted to impeach a President for conduct prior to his becoming President.
You' ...[text shortened]... o do your own research into what the Framers meant by the term "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
(Also, you are wrong, the govt can't do something if the constitution says it CAN'T.)
It can do all kinds of things the constitution doesn't say it can do, like banning alcohol, etc.
Wow you really must suck as a lawyer.
@averagejoe1 saidYeah boss. I made a comment about how much money has been spent investigating the Biden's.
WGrass, post #2 above: "Biden Investigation costs millions$ over 7 years, and got nothing but a gun charge"
Since you ALL do whataboutisms, why can't I? Make up your minds, I simply fight fire with fire. I prefer NO whataboutisms.
Legally speaking, WGrass makes the comment with 'unclean hands', ignoring the landscape.
Then YOU brought up Trump/Russia.
I replied that Trump/Russia actually found real criminals.
You reply with "do us a favor and start a separate thread" comment, ignoring the fact that it was you who brought up the topic.
Tuck tail and run on this, or engage in the actual debate.
@jj-adams saidAs usual, you're wrong. The Federal Government can't ban alcohol except by Constitutional Amendment.
How about impeaching someone AFTER he's no longer president, like the Democrats did to Trump?
(Also, you are wrong, the govt can't do something if the constitution says it CAN'T.)
It can do all kinds of things the constitution doesn't say it can do, like banning alcohol, etc.
Wow you really must suck as a lawyer.
Because Trump's misconduct occurred while he was President and one of the consequences of impeachment can be a ban on holding future Federal offices, there's an argument for the propriety of his second impeachment.
Right wingers don't understand our system at all; the Framers set up a limited Federal government (though the Constitution gave it greater powers than the prior Articles of Confederation). Powers had to be expressly granted to it; you have it backwards in assuming the Federal government can do whatever it pleases absent a specific limitation.
@jj-adams saidBTW, Trump was impeached by the House on January 13, 2021 while he was still in office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump
How about impeaching someone AFTER he's no longer president, like the Democrats did to Trump?
(Also, you are wrong, the govt can't do something if the constitution says it CAN'T.)
It can do all kinds of things the constitution doesn't say it can do, like banning alcohol, etc.
Wow you really must suck as a lawyer.
William Belknap was impeached in 1876 after he had resigned as Secretary of War. While he was acquitted:
"For several weeks senators argued over whether the Senate had jurisdiction to put Belknap on trial since he had already resigned office in March.[98] Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction;[98] the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap
@averagejoe1 saidInnocent?
You once again, missed an issue. He (WGrass)mentioned how much money was being spent on Biden, and I think that he was baiting me, or someone, to come back and say, well, look how much money was spent on the Trump debacle, where he was found innocent of any Russian connection. I had figured one would get that with my simple response to WHrass. You didn’t.
Try reading the Mueller report.
@metal-brain saidCan someone be removed from office while not in office?
This was my quote:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Yours was different. Your quote said while in office. Did you make that up?
@metal-brain said"Signs" is not a diagnosis.
I seriously doubt that is exclusively true.
Are you claiming Biden cannot be impeached for dementia?
We are already seeing signs of Alzheimer's disease in him. If it gets so bad it is obvious even to democrats say it is obvious how do you get him out of office if he refuses to step down like a good sport?
Do you want your president to be like "weekend at Bernie's" without any way to end the charade?